Latest news with #MichaelAchterling
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
North Dakota tribes ask circuit judges for rehearing of voting rights case
Jamie Azure, chair of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, speaks during the Tribal Leaders Summit in Bismarck on Sept. 4, 2024. Turtle Mountain, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens are challenging a ruling in a voting rights case. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens this week asked the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel's finding that they lack standing to bring a voting discrimination case against the state of North Dakota. In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the panel overruled a North Dakota federal district court's decision that a redistricting plan adopted by the state in 2021 diluted the voting power of Native voters. 'Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice,' Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure said in a statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the suit. 'We will continue to fight for fair representation.' Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case The panel's decision didn't speak to whether the map itself was discriminatory; instead, the judges found that private individuals cannot use a key federal civil rights law as a vehicle to file cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws race-based voting discrimination. The panel in its ruling sent the case back to North Dakota U.S. District Judge Peter Welte with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. If its ruling stands, North Dakota would revert back to the 2021 map. But if the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing is granted, the case would go before all 11 judges on the 8th Circuit for review. 'Section 2 is the foundational statute that Congress enacted to fight the scourge of racial discrimination in voting, but citizens in this circuit can no longer enforce the right it provides them,' the plaintiffs argue in a brief urging the full appellate court to consider the case. Private individuals and groups previously could file discrimination lawsuits against governments under just Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act without having to invoke Section 1983, a separate civil rights statute. Then, the 8th Circuit in a controversial 2023 ruling on an Arkansas voting rights case found that Section 2 alone doesn't give private parties the right to sue. Instead, the circuit declared that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General to file Section 2 discrimination cases. Tribes, state argue redistricting case to federal appeals court For more than a year, the question remained open as to whether Section 1983 offered a viable alternative for bringing such Voting Rights Act claims. In a May 14 ruling, the three-judge panel decided it does not. In a majority opinion, the panel wrote that the language of the Voting Rights Act indicates that Congress didn't intend for citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983. The lone dissenting judge on the panel — Chief Judge Steven Colloton — noted in his opinion that private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions under Section 2 since 1982. The plaintiffs in their brief point out that the 8th Circuit is the only appellate circuit in the country to rule that Section 2 cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by private citizens. The circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. 'Outside of this circuit, every American citizen can rely on an unbroken line of Supreme Court and circuit precedent to enforce the individual rights given to them by Congress in the Voting Rights Act,' their filing states. 'But as a result of the panel decision here, and the prior decision in Arkansas, American citizens in this circuit are denied that right.' The lawsuit was triggered by a redistricting plan adopted by the North Dakota Legislature in 2021 that placed the Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake reservations in new districts. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 ruled that the new map was discriminatory and ordered the Legislature to implement a new map that placed the reservations in the same voting district. Three Native American lawmakers from that district were elected in 2024: Sen. Richard Marcellais and Rep. Jayme Davis — both citizens of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa — and Rep. Collette Brown, a citizen of the Spirit Lake Nation and plaintiff in the lawsuit. 'The fair map we secured led to a historic first — a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota Legislature,' Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street said in a Wednesday statement published by the Campaign Legal Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case. 'This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government.' Marcellais had previously served 15 years in the statehouse until he lost his bid for reelection in 2022. He was reelected in 2024. Davis was first elected in 2022, then reelected last year. If the 2021 map is reinstated, three state lawmakers would move to different districts, according to the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office. Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, would go from representing District 9 to District 15. Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, would switch from District 15 to District 9B, while Sen. Kent Weston, R-Sarles, would switch from District 15 to District 9. They would all have to seek reelection in 2026. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
People's Session provides legislative wish list for 2027 session
Dalton Erickson, executive director of the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, speaks at the Heritage Center on May 16, 2025, during the first People's Session, which heard concerns from residents about the 2025 legislative session. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Progressive North Dakotans who brainstormed ideas for the next legislative session want lawmakers to focus on three areas: strong schools, economic security and personal freedom. About 40 people broke into small groups at the North Dakota Heritage Center on Friday to discuss what they believe are the most pressing issues facing the state. The discussion was part of a community-led event called the People's Session. Erin Oban, a former Democratic state senator and teacher, said students going through the K-12 system have vastly different needs. 'There is strong public support for our public schools,' Oban said. 'The challenge is that is not necessarily reflected in the decision-making process and funding that is coming, particularly from the state level.' She added teachers are being underfunded and some have needed to take second jobs to make ends meet. 'We think that is horrible and quite a reflection on how we value teaching as a profession,' she said. Barry Nelson, a community organizer for the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, told event attendees that pre-K and early childhood education in the state need to be expanded. About 62,000 kids in North Dakota are under age 6, but there are only about 38,000 licensed early childhood education slots in the state, he said. 'The data shows that effective early childhood education increases income, reduces poverty, reduces teenage pregnancies and boosts economic productivity,' Nelson said. Other education suggestions included creating incentives for businesses to hire international students who study in North Dakota to keep them in-state after they graduate. It also was suggested that North Dakota, in coordination with the federal government, should be able to issue a certain amount of work visas to international graduates. Another attendee suggested addressing a shortage of lawyers with student loan forgiveness for North Dakota law school graduates and other professions if they stay in the state for five years. Other policy suggestions included taxing out-of-state interests at a higher rate than North Dakota residents or businesses, raising the minimum wage to a livable wage and prohibiting businesses from paying tipped workers below minimum wage. Progressive groups plan 'People's Session' to set North Dakota priorities for future legislation Those speaking on personal freedom wanted more pushback against the state's abortion law and other laws targeting gender-affirming care or health care-related issues. Advocacy organizations hosting the event included the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, Gender Justice, Prairie Action, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota and North Dakota AFL-CIO. Dalton Erickson, executive director for the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, said the state has a citizen Legislature, which means the common people are supposed to have their voices heard for 80 days in Bismarck, every two years. He said one of the purposes of the event was not only to hear concerns from the public, but to better organize policy proposals ahead of the next legislative session in 2027. Erickson added they will put many of the suggestions into bill draft form over the next year and will revisit the issues in spring 2026. 'I think we have a lot of excited people and a lot of great ideas to work off of,' he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Students full of questions about cellphone ban in North Dakota schools
Members of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's Student Cabinet discuss a new law banning student cellphone use in North Dakota public schools on May 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota student leaders say they have a lot of unanswered questions after lawmakers passed a law requiring schools to be cellphone-free. Members of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's Student Cabinet met Wednesday in Bismarck to discuss new legislation that will affect students. Senate Bill 2354, which takes effect Aug. 1, prohibits public school students from having access to cellphones and other electronic devices in school from 'bell to bell.' But the students raised a lot of questions lawmakers may not have considered. Some students said laptops provided by schools are 'horrible' and wondered if they could continue using personal laptops to do school work. Another student said she views digital versions of her textbooks on a tablet so she doesn't have to carry heavy textbooks all day. Yet another student said she'll miss using her phone to access the digital calendar she uses to keep track of homework, after-school practices and appointments. 'I see a lot of uncertainties with a lot of the exceptions the students were bringing up,' said Bridger Rivinius, a junior at Gackle-Streeter Public School. 'I feel like it might be a slight overreach for the state government to have to be involved with that.' Gov. Kelly Armstrong was among the supporters of the bill. He has said it will help the next generation of students emotionally and academically. Gov. Armstrong advocates for eliminating student cellphone use in public schools The law requires cellphones to be silenced and stowed away in an inaccessible location during the school day. It gives school boards flexibility to craft their own policies around school-related noninstructional time, such as dances and sporting events. It also mandates that school districts collect data to measure the impact of the new policy on student behavior, mental health, disciplinary incidents, school attendance and academic performance. Gwyn Marback, a facilitator for the student Cabinet, said she expects there will be some 'fumbles' as school boards try to address issues with their new policies. 'They (state lawmakers) didn't think of everything,' Marback said. 'Hopefully, there's common sense when things arise.' Sophia Johnson, a sophomore at Bismarck Legacy High School, said her school has an open campus policy that allows students to leave school during lunch or a free period, which could be an issue in implementing the policy at her school. 'It might be a bit of a disaster,' Johnson said. 'We have the open campus and we really want to focus on the 21st Century learning and that involves using our phones.' She said some courses, such as media class, require students to use their phones to participate. 'All of that stuff is going to be really inhibited by this,' Johnson said. 'It really should be up to the teachers because they know their students the best. They know what's happening in their classrooms and they know how to work their students.' Aidan Pelton, a senior at Watford City High School, said his school already implemented a zero tolerance cellphone policy. He said kids still have their phones in school, but fewer than before the policy was implemented. 'I like the bill. I just think there's going to be a lot of problems with it,' Pelton said. 'I don't really love the less control at the school level. But, I think it is overall a good thing to have no phones in schools.' Addyson Rademacher-Nyame, an eighth grader at Mandan Middle School, testified in favor of the legislation at the Capitol. She said she finds it encouraging that each school board will be able to craft its own policy. 'It's going to be very interesting, especially this first try. It's going to be good to see the positive and negative results of it right away,' Rademacher-Nyame said. She said legislative fixes might be needed during the 2027 session to address problems that arise from implementing the bill. 'Every school in North Dakota is different,' she said. 'I want to see every angle about how every school developed and adapted to this bill and we'll go from there.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
2 lawsuits against Summit allowed to advance; a third case is pending
Lenora Kenner, center, of Bismarck, talks with attendees of an anti-CO2 pipeline protest at the Capitol in Bismarck on July 27, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Two North Dakota judges have ruled that lawsuits filed by landowners against carbon pipeline company Summit Carbon Solutions can proceed over objections about court procedures. Several landowners are suing Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, which is attempting to build a network of pipelines across five states. The pipelines would take carbon dioxide emissions captured at ethanol plants to sites in western North Dakota for permanent underground storage. Attorneys for Summit had filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that not all parties involved were properly notified and that the cases were not filed in the proper court. Iowa Senate passes bill restricting eminent domain for carbon pipelines South Central Judicial District Court Judge Pam Nesvig issued her ruling Friday rejecting Summit's arguments in one case in which landowners are suing Summit and the North Dakota Public Service Commission. South Central Judicial District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren filed a similar ruling Tuesday in another case in which landowners are suing Summit entities and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. The Public Service Commission in November granted Summit a permit for its pipeline route, about 333 miles through southeast and south-central North Dakota. The Industrial Commission in December granted permits for underground permanent storage of carbon dioxide in Oliver, Mercer and Morton counties. South Central Judicial District Court Judge David Reich has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss in another case where Burleigh County is suing the North Dakota Public Service Commission and Summit Carbon Solutions. Among the issues raised in the PSC cases is that the agency did not give enough consideration to the safety of residents along the pipeline route. The lawsuit also challenges the PSC's ruling that state zoning rules trump county zoning ordinances on pipelines. The PSC ruled last year that a 2019 state law gives the state the upper hand on pipeline setbacks – such as how far away the pipeline must be from a residence – after Summit said Emmons and Burleigh had passed unreasonable set ordinances. In the Industrial Commission case, landowners contend the state Department of Mineral Resources withheld information about Summit's models that would predict where the carbon dioxide would move when the gas is pumped underground. The Industrial Commission oversees the Department of Mineral Resources, which recommended approving the storage permits. About 92% of landowners have voluntarily agreed to participate in the storage facility. CO2 storage law challenged in North Dakota Supreme Court hearing In yet another case, the North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments last month in a challenge to a state law related to underground storage of CO2. The Northwest Landowners Association and other landowners contend a state law that can force landowners to take part in an underground CO2 storage project through a process called amalgamation is unconstitutional. Summit Carbon Solutions is taking part in the defense of that law along with the state of North Dakota and the Industrial Commission. An attorney for Minnkota Power, who joined the Industrial Commission in arguing to the Supreme Court, said a small percentage of property owners should not be able to deny a majority the right to develop their property. Summit's pipelines are planned to connect 57 ethanol plants, including Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton, to the underground carbon storage sites. Summit so far has been denied a permit in South Dakota. It has obtained permits in Iowa and for part of its Minnesota route. Nebraska has no state permitting for carbon pipelines. Supporters of the Summit project say it would support the ethanol industry by lowering the carbon intensity score of the ethanol plants, opening up potential sales in low-carbon fuel markets. The project would take advantage of federal tax credits promoting carbon sequestration to combat greenhouse gas emissions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Dakota lawmakers approve Prairie Public funding, but reduced amount
John Harris, president and CEO of Prairie Public Broadcasting, speaks March 7, 2025, during a legislative committee hearing about state and federal funding for the organization. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota lawmakers set state funding for public broadcasting at $400,000 early Saturday, providing money for tower improvements after threatening to cut off Prairie Public funding completely earlier in the session. Gov. Kelly Armstrong had proposed $2.9 million in his preliminary budget for the 2025-27 biennium, with $1.7 million in one-time funding to assist with transmitter maintenance and replacement. A bill mandating that Prairie Public funding be eliminated advanced through the House but was defeated in the Senate. The Senate vote allowed lawmakers to restore funding in House Bill 1015. Some senators, however, advocated for cutting back on the Prairie Public appropriation. The bill was amended in the Senate to provide $850,000 for Prairie Public, but did not restore its $1.2 million base funding. A conference committee this week cut the funding to $400,000 for infrastructure. John Harris, president and CEO of Prairie Public, testified in a hearing that Prairie Public would be spending $4 million to $7 million in the next 18 months to upgrade facilities and buy transmitters. Prairie Public leaders testified that the organization could survive without state funding, but that it will mean less local programming. Other funding sources for Prairie Public include charitable gambling, endowment funds and investments. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
